PERSONALITY

Why are some people quiet and passive, while others are loud and aggressive, talkative?

Is a certain personality type better adapted than others for a certain job? Before we can answer
these questions, we need to address a more basic one: What is personality?

What Is Personality?

When we talk of personality, we don’t mean a person has charm, a positive attitude toward
life, or a constantly smiling face.

When psychologists talk of personality, they mean a dynamic concept describing the growth
and development of a person’s whole psychological system.

For our purposes, you should think of personality as the sum total of ways in which an
individual reacts to and interacts with others.

We most often describe it in terms of the measurable traits a person exhibits such as shy,
aggressive, lazy, ambitious, loyal and timid (ürkek).

Measuring Personality

The most important reason managers need to know how to measure personality is that
research has shown personality tests are useful in hiring or promotion decisions and help
managers forecast who is best for a job.

The most common ways of measuring personality is through self-report surveys.

In this technic individuals evaluate themselves on a series of factors, such as “I worry a lot
about the future.”

self-report measures work well when well constructed, on the other hand, one weakness is
that the respondent might lie or practice impression management to create a good
impression.

When people know their personality scores are going to be used for hiring decisions, they
rate themselves as more conscientious and emotionally stable than if they are taking the test
just to learn more about themselves.

Another problem is accuracy. A perfectly good candidate could have been in a bad mood
when taking the survey, and that will make the scores less accurate.

Observer-ratings surveys provide an independent assessment of personality.

Here, a co-worker or another observer does the rating (sometimes with the subject’s
knowledge and sometimes not).
Research suggests observer-ratings surveys are a better predictor of success on the job.

However, each can tell us something unique about an individual’s behavior in the
workplace.

Personality studies shows that a combination of self-report and observer-reports predicts

performance better than any one type of information.

The implication is clear: when making important employment decisions use both observer
ratings and self-report ratings of personality

Personality Determinants

An early debate in personality research centered on whether an individual’s personality was

the result of heredity or of environment.

It appears to be a result of both. However, it might surprise you that research tends to support
the importance of heredity over the environment.

Heredity:::. Physical stature, facial attractiveness, gender, temperament (mizaç), muscle

composition and reflexes, energy level, and biological rhythms are generally considered to be
either completely or substantially influenced by who your parents are—that is, by their
biological, physiological, and inherent psychological makeup (qualifications).

The heredity approach argues that the ultimate explanation of an individual’s personality is
the structure of the genes, located in the chromosomes.

Researchers in many different countries have studied thousands of sets of identical twins who
were separated at birth and raised separately.

If heredity played little or no part in determining personality, you would expect to find few
similarities between the separated twins.

But twins raised apart have much in common.

One set of twins separated for 39 years and raised 45 miles apart were found to drive the same
model and color car. They smoked the same brand of cigarette, owned dogs with the same
name.

Researchers have found that genetics accounts for about 80 percent of the personality
similarities between twins.

Interestingly, twin studies have suggested parents don’t add much to our personality
development.

The personalities of identical twins raised in different households are more similar to each
other than to the personalities of siblings with whom the twins were raised.

Environmental factors
This is not to suggest that personality never changes.

Time (Aging) influences the ability or personality.

For instance people’s dependability or responsibility scores tend to increase over time.

The teenage years are periods of great exploration and change.

Research has shown that personality is more changeable in adolescence and more stable
among adults.

Culture and Our life experiences from the beginning effect our personality.

The Big-Five Model

For identifying and classifying personality traits, one of the dominant frameworks is The
Big Five Model.

This Model contains five basic dimensions that encompass most of the significant variation in
human personality.

Extraversion

The extraversion dimension captures our comfort level with relationships.

Extraverts tend to be gregarious (sokulgan), assertive (iddialı), and sociable.

Introverts tend to be reserved (çekingen), timid (ürkek), and quiet (sessiz).

Agreeableness

The agreeableness dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to comply to others.

Highly agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting.

People who score low on agreeableness are cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic (muhalif,
düşman).

Conscientiousness

The conscientiousness dimension is a measure of reliability.

A highly conscientious person is responsible, organized, dependable (güvenilir), and

persistent (sebat).

Those who score low on this dimension are easily distracted (dağılmış), disorganized, and
unreliable.
Emotional stability.

The emotional stability dimension—often labeled by its converse, neuroticism—taps a

person’s ability to withstand stress.

People with positive emotional stability tend to be calm, self-confident, and secure.

Those with high negative scores tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure.

Openness to experience.

The openness to experience dimension addresses range of interests and fascination with
novelty.

Extremely open people are creative, curious (meraklı), and artistically sensitive. Those at the
other end of the category are conventional and find comfort in the familiar.

How Do the Big Five Traits Predict Behavior at Work?

Research has found relationships between these personality dimensions and job performance.

“Research findings show that individuals who are dependable, reliable, careful, thorough, able
to plan, organized, hardworking, persistent, and achievement-oriented tend to have higher job
performance in most if not all occupations.”

Type A Type B

Type A

Type A individuals as outgoing, ambitious, rigidly organized, highly status-conscious,

impatient, anxious, proactive, and concerned with time management.

People with Type A personalities are often high-achieving "workaholics".

They push themselves with deadlines, and hate delays

Eexperience more job-related stress and less job satisfaction.

They tend to set high expectations for themselves, and may believe others have these same
high expectations of them as well.

Interestingly, those with Type A personalities do not always outperform those with Type B
personalities. Depending on the task and the individual's sense of time urgency and control, it
can lead to poor results when there are complex decisions to be made.[11]

However, research has shown that Type A individuals are in general associated with higher
performance and productivity.

Type B
Type B individuals as a contrast to those of Type A.

live at lower stress levels.

They typically work steadily and may enjoy achievement, but when they do not achieve, they
dont experience physical or mental stress.

When faced with competition, they may focus less on winning or losing than their Type A
counterparts, and more on enjoying the game regardless of winning or losing.

They are more tolerant individuals.

Self Esteem

Self-esteem is an individual's subjective evaluation of their own worth.

Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself (for example, "I am unloved", "I am worthy”.)

Self-esteem is an attractive psychological construct because it predicts certain outcomes, such

as academic achievement, happiness, satisfaction in marriage and relationships.

Need for Achievement

Need for achievement is an individual's desire for significant accomplishment, mastering

of skills, control, or high standards.

Locus of Control

Locus of Control refers to an individual's perception about the underlying main causes of
events in his/her life. Or, more simply: Do you believe that your destiny is controlled by
yourself or by external forces (such as fate, god, or powerful others)?

Thus, locus of control is conceptualised as referring to a unidimensional continuum, ranging

from external to internal.

External Locus of Control Individual believes that his/her behaviour is guided by fate, luck, or
other external circumstances.

Internal Locus of Control Individual believes that his/her behaviour is guided by his/her
personal decisions and efforts.

MOTIVATION
We define motivation as the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and
persistence of effort toward attaining a goal. While general motivation is concerned with
effort toward any goal, we’ll narrow the focus to organizational goals in order to reflect our
singular interest in work-related behavior.
The three key elements in our definition are intensity, direction, and persistence. Intensity
describes how hard a person tries. This is the element most of us focus on when we talk about
motivation. However, high intensity is unlikely to lead to favorable job-performance
outcomes unless the effort is channeled in a direction that benefits the organization.
Therefore, we consider the quality of effort as well as its intensity. Effort directed toward, and
consistent with, the organization’s goals is the kind of effort we should be seeking. Finally,
motivation has a persistence dimension. This measures how long a person can maintain effort.
Motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve their goal.

EARLY THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

Motivation theories are used to understand, explain, and influence human behavior. Early and
modern theories of motivation allow a manager to find the reasons for people’s actions,
desires, and needs. Motivation theories also explain how to influence one’s direction to
behavior that allows controlling and guiding employees’ actions.
Many theories of motivation are developed by phycologists and human resources specialists.
Early theories are important as they represent a foundation from which contemporary theories
have grown.
Practicing managers still regularly use these theories and their terminology in explaining
employee motivation.
Hierarchy of Needs Theory
(Abraham Maslow)
Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs is one of the best-known theories of motivation.
Maslow's theory states that our actions are motivated by certain physiological and
psychological needs that progress from basic to complex. This hierarchy suggests that people
are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to other, more advanced needs.
Physiological Needs
The physiological needs include those that are vital to survival. Some examples of
physiological needs include:
 Food

 Water

 Breathing

Security and Safety Needs

At the second level of Maslow’s hierarchy, the needs start to become a bit more complex. At
this level, the needs for security and safety become primary.
People want control and order in their lives. Some of the basic security and safety needs
include:
 Financial security
  Health and wellness

 Safety against accidents and injury

Together, the safety and physiological levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs make up what is
often referred to as "basic needs."
Social Needs
The social needs in Maslow’s hierarchy include love, acceptance, and belonging. At this level,
the need for emotional relationships drives human behavior. Some of the things that satisfy
this need include:
 Friendships

 Romantic attachments

 Family relationships

 Social groups

 Community groups

 Religious organizations

Esteem Needs
At the fourth level in Maslow’s hierarchy is the need for appreciation and respect. Once the
needs at the bottom three levels have been satisfied, the esteem needs begin to play a more
prominent role in motivating behavior.
At this level, it becomes increasingly important to gain the respect and appreciation of others.
People need to sense that they are valued by others and feel that they are making a
contribution to the world. Participation in professional activities, academic accomplishments,
athletic or team participation, and personal hobbies can all play a role in fulfilling the esteem
needs.
Together, the esteem and social levels make up what is known as the "psychological needs" of
the hierarchy.
Self-Actualization Needs
At the very peak of Maslow’s hierarchy are the self-actualization needs. Self-
actualizing people are self-aware, concerned with personal growth, less concerned with the
opinions of others, and interested in fulfilling their potential.
"What a man can be, he must be," Maslow explained, referring to the need people have to
achieve their full potential as human beings.
Assumptions of Maslow’s Hierarchy
When the lower need is satisfied, a person moves to the next higher level need. Individuals
cannot move to the next higher level until all needs at the current (lower) level are satisfied.
Human needs form an hierarchy starting from basic needs to higher level needs.
Human behaviour is based on needs. Such satisfaction influences behaviour.
So if you want to motivate someone, according to Maslow, you need to understand what level
of the hierarchy that person is currently on and focus on satisfying needs at or above that
level.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (motivation-hygiene theory)

From these interviews Herzberg went on to develop his theory that there are two dimensions
to job satisfaction: motivation and “hygiene. Hygiene issues, according to Herzberg, cannot
motivate employees but can minimize dissatisfaction, if handled properly. In other words,
they can only dissatisfy if they are absent or mishandled. Hygiene topics include company
policies, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions. They are issues
related to the employee's environment. Motivators, on the other hand, create satisfaction by
fulfilling individuals' needs for meaning and personal growth. They are issues such as
achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement. Once the hygiene
areas are addressed, said Herzberg, the motivators will promote job satisfaction and
encourage production.
If we want to summerize;
1. Frederick Herzberg theorized that employee satisfaction has two dimensions:
“hygiene” and motivation.
2. Hygiene issues, such as salary and supervision, decrease employees' dissatisfaction
with the work environment.
3. Motivators, such as recognition and achievement, make workers more productive,
creative and committed.

Theory X and Theory Y (Douglas McGregor)

In 1960, Douglas McGregor formulated Theory X and Theory Y suggesting two aspects of
human behaviour at work, or in other words, two different views of individuals (employees):
one of which is negative, called as Theory X and the other is positive, so called as Theory Y
According to McGregor, the perception of managers on the nature of individuals is based on
various assumptions:
Assumptions of Theory X
 An average employee intrinsically does not like work and tries to escape it whenever
possible.

 Since the employee does not want to work, he must be compelled, forsed or warned
with punishment so as to achieve organizational goals. A close supervision is required
on part of managers.

 Employees generally dislike responsibilities.

  Employees resist change.

 An average employee needs formal direction.

Assumptions of Theory Y
 Employees can perceive their job as relaxing and normal.

 Employees may not require only threat, external control and coercion/force to work,
but they can use self-direction and self-control if they are dedicated to achieve the
organizational objectives.

 If the job is rewarding and satisfying, then it will result in employees’ loyalty and
commitment to organization.

 An average employee can learn to admit and recognize the responsibility

 The employees have skills and capabilities. The creativity, resourcefulness and
innovative potentiality of the employees can be utilized to solve organizational
problems.

Thus, we can say that Theory X presents a pessimistic view of employees’ nature and
behaviour at work, while Theory Y presents an optimistic view of the employees’ nature and
behaviour at work. McGregor views Theory Y to be more valid and reasonable than Theory
X.
Therefore, he proposed such ideas as participative decision making, responsible and
challenging jobs, and good group relations to maximize an employee’s job motivation.
Unfortunately, no evidence confirms that either set of assumptions is valid or that acting on
Theory Y assumptions will lead to more motivated workers.
David McClelland’s Theory of Needs
The Three Needs Theory, also known as need theory, is the best-known theory of David
McClelland, a Harvard professor who spent thirty years conducting research on motivation.
He sought to understand human nature and develop tools to measure how people make
choices.
McClelland’s Theory of Three Needs outlines the three desires that an individual could
possibly have. Each person is motivated by power, affiliation, or achievement. One trait is
usually more dominant, but the others are present in an individual as well.
The Power Motive
If an individual’s predominant motive is power, they are motivated to influence others and
take control. They do not seek to implement a dictatorship but hope to motivate others,
delegate responsibility and influence those around them.
McClelland found that power-motivated individuals were best suited for leadership positions
within a company. If they were able to effectively delegate tasks in the workforce, they were
often able to be successful leaders. This does not mean that all power-motivated individuals
will make good leaders. Each personality is unique and those who are aggressive and
authoritative may actually decrease the work performance of their employees.
The Achievement Motive
If an individual’s predominant motive is achievement, they are motivated to do better for the
sake of doing so. They hope to exceed expectations and are pleased when they surpass their
peers. These individuals like challenges and want to be in charge of their success.
Achievement-oriented individuals will change the situation or the location if they feel like it is
not meeting their needs. They do not like working in groups because they do not like having
limited control over the outcome. Instead, they prefer to do work where the results are clear
and visible.

The Affiliation Motive

If an individual’s predominant motive is affiliation, they are essentially motivated by social
connections. They are primarily motivated to fit in and please others, and value their
relationships with their peers. These individuals appreciate familiar situations and are unlikely
to leave their work location. They also do not like working alone and try to avoid
disappointing their coworkers and managers at all costs.
Even though affiliation-motivated individuals work well in a team, they are often not the best
employees. They are not motivated to do better as they are satisfy to stay in their position.
There is no drive to improve their employee status or their personal position, which makes
them, in effect, the least effective workers.
Contemporary Theories of Motivation
Goal-Setting Theory
(Edwin Locke)
In the late 1960s, Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major
source of work motivation.
In simple words, goals indicate and give direction to an employee about what needs to be
done and how much efforts are required to be put in.
The important features of goal-setting theory are as follows:
 The willingness to work towards attainment of goal is main source of job motivation.
Clear, particular and difficult goals are greater motivating factors than easy, general
and vague/uncertain goals.

 Specific and clear goals lead to greater output and better performance.

 Goals should be realistic and challenging. This gives an individual a feeling of pride
when he attains them, and sets him up for attainment of next goal. The more
challenging the goal, the greater is the reward generally and the more is the passion for
achieving it.
  Better and appropriate feedback of results directs the employee behaviour and
contributes to higher performance than absence of feedback. Feedback is a means of
gaining reputation, making clarifications and regulating goal difficulties. It helps
employees to work with more involvement and leads to greater job satisfaction.

 Participation of setting goal, makes goal more acceptable and leads to more
involvement.

Reinforcement Theory
(B. Frederick Skinner)
B.F Skinner’s work is built on the assumption that behaviour is influenced by its
consequences. Reinforcement theory is the process of shaping behavior by controlling
consequences of the behavior. Reinforcement theory proposes that you can change someone's
behaviour by using reinforcement, punishment, and extinction. Rewards are used to reinforce
the behaviour you want and punishments are used to prevent the behaviour you do not want.
Extinction is a means to stop someone from performing a learned behaviour. The technical
term for these processes is called ‘operant conditioning’
The reinforcement theory of motivation aims to motivate staff through reinforcement,
punishment and extinction. Reinforcement theory in the workplace can be positive or negative
as long as it reinforces the desired employee experience and behavior. Managers using
reinforcement theory to motivate staff should explain to employees which behaviors will
result in positive feedback.
Positive reinforcement
A key idea in the reinforcement theory of motivation is that positive reinforcement with
rewards reinforces desired behaviors. For example, providing an employee with extra days off
for good performance in their job.
Negative reinforcement
Negative reinforcement involves the removal of aversive stimuli to reinforce the target
behavior. For example, a manager can stop assigning tedious tasks to an employee when the
employee starts meeting deadlines.
Punishment
In the workplace, punishment is using negative consequences or removing positive ones to
deter (caydırmak) employees from engaging in inappropriate or harmful behavior again.
Extinction
Like punishment, the goal of extinction is to lower the occurrence of undesired behaviors. In
this scenario, valued consequences can be withheld to reduce the probability of a specific
learned behavior from continuing. The idea is to stop a learned behavior over time. For
example, an organization might stop paying overtime to discourage employees from staying
late and working too many extra hours.
 Equity Theory
(Stacy Adams)
Equity Theory, or known as the Equity Theory of Motivation, was introduced in 1963 by John
Stacey Adams, a workplace behavioral psychologist.
The equity theory of motivation is the idea that what an individual receives for their work has
a direct effect on their motivation. When applied to the workplace, it means an individual will
generally aim to create a balance between what they give to the organization compared to
what they get in return.
Employees perceive what they get from a job situation (outcome) in relationship to what they
put into it (input), and then they compare their outcome–input ratio with that of relevant
others. If we perceive our ratio to be equal to that of the relevant others with whom we
compare ourselves, a state of equity exists; we perceive that our situation is fair and justice
prevails. When we see the ratio as unequal and we feel underrewarded, we experience equity
tension that creates anger. For example, if an employee knows that their colleague is getting a
higher salary than them for the same amount of work, this might create dissatisfaction. When
we see ourselves as overrewarded, tension creates guilt. According to equity theory,
underrewarded and overrewarded tend to produce similar reactions to correct the inequities.
But, people have more tolerance of overpayment inequities than of underpayment inequities
or are better able to rationalize them.
The equity theory contains two primary components: inputs and outcomes.
Inputs
Inputs are every small or significant contribution employees make towards the organization.
Different inputs can include time commitments, daily job responsibilities, loyalty to an
organization and enthusiasm for one’s work. education, experience, effort, commitment.
An employee will often distinguish between inputs they consider controllable and not
controllable. Examples of controllable inputs include communication and attendance, while
uncontrollable inputs could be job training and seniority.
Outcomes
An outcome, or output, is the compensation that an individual receives as a direct result of the
input they provide.
Outcomes can include hard factors such as:
 Salary and pay raises

 Job security

 Benefits like healthcare or vacation time

There are also less tangible outcomes:

 Praise from coworkers

 Improved reputation
  Pride in one’s work

If the person feels that he/she is inequitably rewarded, he/she may be dissatisfied, reduce the
quantity or quality of output, or even leave the organization.
When employees perceive an inequity, they can be predicted to make one of six choices:
Change their inputs.
Change their outcomes.
Distort (çarpıtmak) perceptions of self.
Distort perceptions of others.
Choose a different referent.
Leave the field.
Expectancy Theory (Victor Vroom)
One of the most widely known explanations of motivation is Victor Vroom’s expectancy
theory which was proposed in 1964.
Expectancy theory argues that employees will be motivated to exert a high level of effort
when they believe it will lead to a good performance appraisal (expectancy); that a good
appraisal will lead to organizational rewards such as bonuses, salary increases, or promotions
(instrumentality) ; and that the rewards will satisfy the employees’ personal goals (valence).
That is, Motivation is a function of expectancy, instrumentality and valence.
In the other word, first, motivation is affected by an individual’s expectation that a certain
level of effort will produce the intended performance goal. For example, if you do not believe
increasing the amount of time you spend studying will significantly raise your grade on an
exam, you probably will not study any harder than usual. Motivation also is influenced by the
employee’s perceived chances of getting various outcomes as a result of accomplishing his or
her performance goal. Finally, individuals are motivated to the extent that they value the
outcomes (i.e. rewards) received.
Expectancy Theory Expectations:-
 There is a positive correlation between efforts and performance,
 Favourable performance will result in a desirable reward,
 The reward will satisfy an important need and the desire to satisfy the need is strong
enough to make the effort worthwhile.
WHAT VROOM’S EXPECTANCY THEORY MEANS FOR LEADERS AND
ORGANIZATIONS?
Vroom’s model helps make clear that leaders or organizations need to:
1 – Set achievable objectives for individuals:-
The objectives you set don’t need to be easy. But they need to be in the power of your team
members to achieve. This may mean that the individuals in your teams need to be empowered
to achieve things and it may mean that they need to be supported to do so.
2 – Provide promised rewards when they are earned:-
This is all about trust. To be trustworthy in this context you need to provide the implicit and
explicit outcomes and rewards that you have agreed to provide. If you don’t do this, trust will
be broken. When trust is broken, individuals will stop to be motivated by your proposed
rewards.
3– Provide rewards that individuals value:-
These could be intrinsic aspects designed into rewarding role descriptions, they could be
recognition, they could be new opportunities or they could be financial rewards. The
important point is that you find the right rewards for your people. People join organizations
with expectations about their needs, motivations, and past experience. And they attach
different meanings/values to different rewards. Each of us motivates by different rewards.
Herzberg
What are the hygiene factors for studying your lectures?
What are the motivation factors that motivate you to study your lectures?

Group Behavior and Work Teams

We define a group as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have
come together to achieve specific objectives/ purposes.
Groups can be either formal or informal. By a formal group, we mean one defined by the
organization’s structure, with designated work assignments establishing tasks.
For example ten members of a HRM/marketing department are a formal group.
In contrast, an informal group is neither formally structured nor organizationally determined.
They are natural formations in the workplaces that appear in response to the need for social
contact of workers.
For instance, friends from different department are example of informal group. They have
lunch or coffee together regularly. These types of interactions among individuals, though
informal, deeply affect their behavior and performance.

Why Do People Join Groups?

Social identity theory clarifies the reasons for people joining groups. According
to social identity theory, individuals need to belong to groups which enhance or do not
diminish their self-esteem.
This theory proposes that individuals react emotionally to their group’s failure or success
because their self-esteem gets tied into the group’s performance. When your group does well,
your own self-esteem rises. When your group fails, you might feel bad about yourself.

Social identities also help us reduce uncertainty about who we are and what we should do.
Individuals develop a lot of identities in their lives. They might define themselves in terms of
the city they live, the organization they work for, their religious background, their
occupations, their ethnicity, or their gender. We are men, women, lecturers, Muslims,
engineers,

Social identities help us understand who we are, but they can have a negative side as well.
Ingroup favoritism means we see members of our ingroup as better than outgroup members.
This unfortunately leads to stereotypes.

Several characteristics make a social identity important to a person:

●Similarity. Of course, people who have the same values have higher levels of group
identification. Demographic similarity can also lead to stronger identification for new hires,
while those who are demographically different may have a hard time identifying with the
group as a whole.
● Distinctiveness. (Ayrıt edici özellik) Usually, people aware identities that show how they
are different from other groups. For example women and men’s differences. Women always
claim that how they are different from men.
● Status. It makes sense that people try to link themselves to high status groups because
they use identities for defining themselves and improving self-esteem.
For instance, graduates of prestigious universities make donations to their schools generously
because they proud of being graduated from this school.

● And the last reason people join a group is uncertainty reduction. Membership in a group
also helps some people understand who they are and how they fit into the world.
For instance when a newcomer joins a group in the workplace he can learn the rules, values,
rights and wrongs quickly. Because he can decrease uncertainty with the help of these people.

How a group develops?

The Five-Stage Model
This model has the distinct stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and
adjourning.
Forming stage is the first stage , and in this stage there is a great ambigiuity about the
group’s aims, structure, and leadership.
Members try to determine/understand what types of behaviors are acceptable in this
group. This stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a
group.
The storming stage is one of intragroup conflict. Members accept the existence of the group
but resist the constraints.
There is conflict over who will be the leader, who will control the group. When there will be
a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership within the group, this stage is complete.

In the third stage, close relationships develop and the group demonstrates cohesiveness. There
is strong sense of group identity and friendship. This norming stage is complete when the
group structure solidifies (sağlamlaşmak) and defines correct member behavior.

The fourth stage is performing. At this point the structure of group is fully functional and
accepted by members. Group energy has moved from getting to know and understand each
other to performing the task.
Performing is the last stage in development for permanent groups. Because permanent groups
do not disperse.
But, for temporary groups, the adjourning stage is the last stage. Members of the group
break up.

Group Property
Work groups are not unorganized crowd; they have some properties/attributes that shape
members’ behaviors. For instance, as group members, we know how we should behave or
react in a particular situation.
Some of these properties/attributes are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity.

Group Property 1: Roles

Shakespeare said, “All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely/only players.”
And using this metaphor, we can say all group members are actors, each playing a role.
Role can be defined as in a social unit, a set of expected behavior patterns/models attributed to
someone occupying a given position.

We have number of diverse roles in our life and we play these roles regularly. We are
daughters, lecturers, students, women, men, friends… Different groups impose different role
requirements on individuals. So our behavior varies with each roles.

When compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to comply with another, the
result is role conflict. When there is a contradiction between our roles, there is a role conflict.
For example as a friend and as a supervisor of the same person, how do you act your two roles
effectively?

I’d like to give you information about an experiment in this field. Zimbardo’s Prison
Experiment one of the most illuminating (aydınlatıcı), explanatory role and identity
experiments was done a number of years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip
Zimbardo and his associates. They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford
psychology building; hired at $15 a day two dozen emotionally stable, physically healthy,
law-abiding (yasalara saygılı) students who scored “normal average” on extensive personality
tests; randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner”; and established some
basic rules.

It took the “prisoners” little time to accept the authority positions of the “guards” or for the
mock (sahte) guards to adjust to their new authority roles. Consistent with social identity
theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative outgroup, and their comments to
researchers showed they had developed stereotypes about the “typical” prisoner personality
type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt (isyan girişimini bastırmak) on the second
day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. The prisoners actually began to believe and
act as if they were powerless, as the guards constantly reminded them. And every guard, at
some time during the simulation, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. Surprisingly,
during the entire experiment—even after days of abuse—not one prisoner said, “Stop this. I’m
a student like you. This is just an experiment!”

The simulation actually proved too successful in demonstrating how quickly individuals learn
new roles. The researchers had to stop it after only 6 days because of the participants’
pathological reactions. And remember, these were individuals chosen precisely for their
normal and emotional stability.

Group Property 2: Norms

As Turks, we respect elders and give them our seats. Here, respect is our value but giving
your seat is the norm.

All groups have some norms. Norms are acceptable behavior standards shared by the group
members that express them what they ought and ought not to do under certain
circumstances/situations.
Group norms influence members’ behavior significantly. In a business organization probably
the most common group norm is a performance norm. This norm makes clear how hard
employees work, what the amount of product should be or what level of delay is appropriate,
and so on. These norms are especially powerful because they can modify worker’s
performance via rising ability and motivation of them.

In a business organization other norms can be appearance norms (dress codes, unspoken
rules), social arrangement norms (with whom to eat lunch, whether to form friendships on
and off the job), and last, resource allocation norms (assignment of difficult jobs, distribution
of resources like pay or equipment).

The effect of norms on employees' behavior was not understood until the Hawthorne Studies
in the early 1930s. Hawthorne studies conducted at the Western Electric Company’
Hawthorne plants between 1924 and 1932 by Elton Mayo and his colleagues from Harvard
University. Researchers started to examine the effects of physical working conditions and pay
on productivity. They generate two groups, experiment, and the control group. They altered
the light levels, light intensity or wage incentives and they measured the productivity of
workers. They expected productivity to rise when they increased the light or wage level. But
they surprised that they dropped the light level in the experimental group, productivity of both
group continued to increase. Or they increased the wages level but they noticed workers
didn’t maximize their output individually. On the contrary, their output level was controlled
by a group norm about the proper output level. Researchers did interviews with workers after
all experiments. According to interviews, the group produced below their capability/capacity
and balanced the output to protect itself. Members were afraid that whether they significantly
increased their output, the unit incentive rate would be cut, the expected daily output would be
increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers would be reprimanded (azarlanmak),
blamed. So the group established its norm of a fair output—neither too much nor too little.
How did the group enforce these norms? The methods included name-calling (küfür) and even
punches (yumruklar) to any member who violated the group’s norms. Members also excluded
individuals whose behavior was against the group’s interest.

The Hawthorne studies made an important contribution to our understanding of group

behavior which shows that it has a direct effect in individual worker behavior.

We should explain here the conformity concept as well. To develop meaningful social
relationships with people we try to conform to the group’s norms and standards. Because
people are social entities, we desire to be socially accepted. So groups have strong pressures
on individuals’ behaviors and attitudes.

A classic study by Solomon Asch in 1951 demonstrated that the group pressures for
conformity can have a strong effect on an individual’s judgments. Asch composed groups of
seven or eight people. And groups were asked to compare two cards that showed to them. One
of the two cards had only one line and the other had three lines varying length. In the second
card, as you can see from the slide, one line was the same length as one line in the other card.
In the group only one person was the subject. Others were assistants of Asch.

On the first set, all group members gave the right answers. But on the third tour, the first
subject gave an obviously/clearly wrong answer—for example, saying “C”. The next subject
gave the same wrong answer intentionally, and so did the others. And what the real subject
did? He gave the wrong answer as well. As a result, 37 percent of the subject gave the wrong
answer even they saw the length of the lines evidently.
We can conclude from these results that group norms have important pressure on us.
And should we consider them generalizable across cultures? I mean, is this pressure the same
across cultures? The answer is no. Conformity to social norms is higher in collectivist
cultures, but it is still a powerful force in groups in individualistic countries.

Group Property 3: Status

Status is a socially defined position or rank/grade given to groups or group members by
others. Even in a small group there will develop some roles, some rights, and some rituals to
differentiate its members.

What Determines Status?

According to status characteristics theory, status tends to arise from one of three sources:

1. The power a person has over others. For instance, managers and supervisors. Because
they control the group’s resources, managers tend to be perceived as high status.

2. A person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals. People whose contributions are

critical to the group’s success tend to have high status. Like in your group work situations.
Your friends who speak English fluently have a high status between the members.

3. And status may derive from An individual’s personal characteristics. Someone whose
personal characteristics are positively valued by the group (good looks, intelligence, money,
or a friendly personality) typically has higher status than someone with fewer valued
attributes.

Group Property 4: Size

Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect depends on
what dependent variables we look at. For instance smaller groups are faster at completing
tasks than larger ones, and individuals perform better in smaller groups.
However, in problem solving, large groups consistently get better marks than their smaller
counterparts.

One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns social loafing, the
tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than alone.

What causes social loafing?

(1) It may be a belief that other members of the group are not working enough. If you see
others as lazy, you can reestablish equity by reducing your effort.
(2) Another explanation can be the dispersion/distribution of responsibility. Because group
results cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual’s
input and the group’s output is clouded. Individuals may then be tempted to become free
riders (beleşçi).

There are several ways to prevent social loafing:

(1) Set group goals, so the group has a common purpose;
(2) increase intergroup competition, which again focuses on the shared outcome;
(3) engage in peer evaluation so each person evaluates each other person’s contribution;
(4) select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups, and
(5) if possible, base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions. Like I do


Group Property 5: Cohesiveness/loyalty

Groups differ in their cohesiveness —the degree to which members are attracted to each other
and motivated to stay in the group. Some work groups are cohesive because the members
have spent a great deal of time together, or the group’s small size facilitates high interaction,
or external threats have brought members close together. Cohesiveness affects group
productivity.

What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness?

(1) Make the group smaller,
(2) encourage agreement with group goals,
(3) increase the time members spend together,
(4) increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership,
(5) stimulate competition with other groups,
(6) give rewards to the group rather than to individual members, and
(7) physically isolate the group.

Group Decision Making

Two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a basic component of the U.S. legal
system and those of many other countries. Today, many decisions in organizations are made
by groups, teams, or committees.
Strengths of Group Decision Making Groups generate more complete information and
knowledge. By aggregating (toplama) the resources of several individuals, groups bring more
input as well as heterogeneity into the decision process. They offer increased diversity of
views. This opens up the opportunity to consider more approaches and alternatives. Finally,
groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Group members who participated in making
a decision are more likely to enthusiastically support and encourage others to accept it.
Weaknesses of Group Decision Making Group decisions are time consuming because
groups typically take more time to reach a solution. There are conformity pressures. The
desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can squash any
overt disagreement. Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. If they’re
low- and medium-ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer. Finally,
group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it’s clear who
is accountable for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single
member is unclear.
Differences between Groups and Teams
Groups and teams are not the same thing. A work group is a group that interacts primarily to
share information and make decisions to help each member perform within his or her area of
responsibility. A work team, on the other hand, generates positive synergy through
coordinated effort. The individual efforts result in a level of performance greater than the sum
of those individual inputs.

Leadership

Leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of
goals. The source of this influence may be formal, such as that provided by managerial rank
in an organization.
But not all leaders are managers, nor, for that matter, are all managers leaders.
Just because an organization provides its managers with certain formal rights is no assurance
they will lead effectively.
Nonsanctioned (informel) leadership—the ability to influence that arises outside the formal
structure of the organization—is often as important or more important than formal influence.
In other words, leaders can emerge from within a group as well as by formal appointment.

Leaders & Managers

Every company, no matter what industry they’re a part of or how big they are, needs good
leadership to be successful. But Organizations need strong leadership and strong management
for optimal effectiveness. We need leaders today to challenge the status quo, create visions of
the future, and inspire organizational members to want to achieve the visions. We also need
managers to formulate detailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and oversee
day-to-day operations.
Theories of leadership
Leadership theories are the explanations of how and why certain people become leaders. They
focus on the traits, behaviors and contingency variables that people can adopt to increase their
leadership capabilities.
Trait Theories
Behavioral Theories
Contingency Theories
Trait theories of leadership
The trait theory of leadership focuses on identifying different personality traits and
characteristics that are linked to successful leadership across a variety of situations.
The trait model of leadership is based on the characteristics of many leaders - both successful
and unsuccessful - and is used to predict leadership effectiveness. The resulting lists of traits
are then compared to those of potential leaders to assess their likelihood of success or failure.
Scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify physiological (appearance, height, and
weight), demographic (age, education and socioeconomic background), personality, self-
confidence, and aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and
knowledge), task-related (achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social
characteristics (sociability and cooperativeness) with leader emergence and leader
effectiveness.
Trait theories of leadership-2
Early research efforts that try to isolate leadership traits resulted in a number of dead ends. A
review in the late 1960s of 20 different studies identified nearly 80 leadership traits, but only
5 were common to 4 or more of the investigations.
A breakthrough/progress came when researchers began organizing traits around the Big Five
personality framework (as we have seen before). Most of the dozens of traits in various
leadership reviews fit under one of the Big Five (for instance, ambition and energy are part of
extraversion), giving strong support to traits as predictors of leadership.

Trait theories of leadership-2

According to the comprehensive leadership literature, when organized around the Big Five,
has found extraversion to be the most important trait of effective leaders, but it is more
strongly related to the way leaders emerge, not to their effectiveness. Sociable and dominant
people are more likely to assert themselves in group situations, but leaders need to make sure
they’re not too assertive—one study found leaders who scored very high on assertiveness
(iddiali) were less effective than those who were moderately high.
Unlike agreeableness and emotional stability, conscientiousness and openness to experience
also showed strong relationships to leadership, though not quite.

Trait theories of leadership-3

Another trait that may indicate effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EI). Emotional
intelligence is defined as the ability to understand and manage your own emotions, as well as
recognize and influence the emotions of those around you.
The term was first coined in 1990 by researchers John Mayer and Peter Salovey, but was later
popularized by psychologist Daniel Goleman.
More than a decade ago, Goleman highlighted the importance of emotional intelligence in
leadership, telling the Harvard Business Review, “The most effective leaders are all alike in
one crucial way: They all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional
intelligence. It’s not that IQ and technical skills are irrelevant. They do matter, but...they are
the entry-level requirements for executive positions.”
According to researchers of EI argue that without it, a person can have outstanding training, a
highly analytical mind, a compelling vision, and an endless supply of terrific ideas but still not
make a great leader. This may be especially true as individuals move up in an organization.
Emotional intelligence has 3 dimensions:
(1) perceiving emotions in the self and others,
(2) understanding the meaning of these emotions, and
(3) regulating one’s emotions.

Trait theories of leadership-4

Why is EI so critical to effective leadership?
Social Awareness is so critical. While it’s important to understand and manage your own
emotions, you also need to know how to read a room. Social awareness describes your ability
to recognize others’ emotions and the dynamics in play within your organization.
People who know their own emotions and are good at reading emotional cues—for instance,
knowing why they’re angry and how to express themselves without violating norms—are
most likely to be effective.
Leaders who excel in social awareness practice empathy. They strive to understand their
colleagues’ feelings and perspectives, which enables them to communicate and collaborate
more effectively with their peers. Empathy is the core component of EI. Empathetic leaders
can sense others’ needs, listen to what followers say (and don’t say), and read the reactions of
others. A leader who effectively displays and manages emotions may easily influence the
feelings of followers, by both expressing genuine sympathy and enthusiasm for good
performance and by using irritation for those who fail to perform.
 Trait theories of leadership-5
Based on the latest findings we can conclude that:
(1) Contrary to what we believed 20 years ago, -because its believed to be out of date-, with
the Big Five approach/explanations, we can say that traits can predict leadership.
(2) Traits do a better job predicting the emergence of leaders and the appearance of
leadership than actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective leaders.
The fact that an individual exhibits the traits and that others consider him or her a leader does
not necessarily mean the leader is successful at getting the group to achieve its goals.
Limitations of The Trait Theory
 There is bound to be some subjective judgment in determining who is regarded as a
‘good’ or ‘successful’ leader
 The list of possible traits tends to be very long. More than 100 different traits of
successful leaders in various leadership positions have been identified.
 There is also a disagreement over which traits are the most important for an
effective leader
 The model attempts to relate physical traits such as, height and weight, to effective
leadership. Most of these factors relate to situational factors. For example, a minimum
weight and height might be necessary to perform the tasks efficiently in a military
leadership position. In business organizations, these are not the requirements to be an
effective leader.
 The theory is very complex

Behavioral Theories of Leadership

The failures of early trait studies led researchers in the late 1940s through the 1960s to
wonder whether there was something unique in the way effective leaders behave. The theory
emphasizes that leadership capability can be learned, rather than being inherent. So trait
research provides a basis for selecting the right people for leadership. In contrast, behavioral
theories of leadership implied we could train people to be leaders.

Behavioral Theories of Leadership-2

The most comprehensive theories resulted from the Ohio State Studies in the late 1940s.
Ohio State Studies found two behaviors that accounted for leadership behavior
Initiating structure; the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role
and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It includes behavior that attempts to
organize work, work relationships, and goals. A leader high in initiating structure is someone
who “expects workers to maintain definite standards of performance,” and “emphasizes the
meeting of deadlines.”
Consideration is the extent to which a person’s job relationships are characterized by mutual
trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. A leader high in
consideration helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable, treats all
employees as equals, and expresses appreciation and support.

Leadership studies at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center had similar
objectives: to locate behavioral characteristics of leaders that appeared related to performance
effectiveness. The Michigan group also came up with two behavioral dimensions: the
employee-oriented leader emphasized interpersonal relationships by taking a personal
interest in the needs of employees and accepting individual differences among them, and the
production oriented leader emphasized the technical or task aspects of the job, focusing on
accomplishing the group’s tasks.
These dimensions are closely related to the Ohio State dimensions. Employee-oriented
leadership is similar to consideration, and production-oriented leadership is similar to
initiating structure. In fact, most leadership researchers use the terms synonymously.
Some research from the GLOBE study suggests there are international differences in
preference for initiating structure and consideration.
Based on the values of Brazilian employees, a U.S. manager leading a team in Brazil would
need to be team oriented, participative, and humane. Leaders high in consideration would
succeed best in this culture.
According to the GLOBE study, Chinese culture emphasizes being polite, considerate, and
unselfish, but it also has a high performance orientation. Thus, consideration and initiating
structure may both be important.
Summary of Trait Theories and Behavioral Theories
Traits and behaviors are in identifying effective or ineffective leaders, they do not guarantee
success. The context matters, too.
Contingency theories of leadership
According to some scientists, leadership success is more complex than isolating a few traits
or behaviors.
Under condition a, leadership style x would be appropriate, whereas style y was more suitable
for condition b, and style z for condition c.

The Fiedler Model

 Fred Fiedler developed the first comprehensive contingency model for leadership. The
Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends on the proper
match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives the leader
control.
Fiedler has identified three contingency or situational dimensions:
1. Leader–member relations is the degree of confidence, trust, and respect members have in
their leader.
2. Task structure is the degree to which the job assignments are procedurized (that is,
structured or unstructured).
3. Position power is the degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring,
firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases.
Contemporary Leadership Theories
In this section, I present two contemporary leadership theories—charismatic leadership and
transformational leadership—with a common theme: they view leaders as individuals who
inspire followers through their words, ideas, and behaviors.
Charismatic Leadership
Max Weber, a sociologist, defined charisma more than a century ago as “a certain quality of
an individual personality, by virtue of which he or she is set apart from ordinary people and
treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional
powers or qualities. These are not accessible to the ordinary person and are regarded as of
divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated
as a leader.”
A number of studies have attempted to identify the characteristics: SLAYT.
The Dark Side of Charismatic Leadership
– Don’t necessarily act in interest of companies.
– Many have allowed their personal goals to override the goals of the organization.
– Research has shown that individuals who are narcissistic are also higher in some
behaviors associated with charismatic leadership.
– Some charismatic leaders are too successful convincing followers to pursue a vision that
can be disastrous.
Transformational Leadership
A stream of research has focused on differentiating transformational from transactional
leaders. The Ohio State studies, University of Michigan Studies and Fiedler’s model describe
transactional leaders, who guide their followers toward established goals by clarifying role
and task requirements.
Transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of
the organization and can have an extraordinary effect on their followers.
They pay attention to the concerns and needs of individual followers; they change followers’
awareness of issues by helping them look at old problems in new ways; and they excite and
inspire followers to put out extra effort to achieve group goals.
Transactional and transformational leadership complement each other; they aren’t opposing
approaches to getting things done. 63 Transformational leadership builds on transactional
leadership and produces levels of follower effort and performance beyond what transactional
leadership alone can do. But the reverse isn’t true. So if you are a good transactional leader
but do not have transformational qualities, you’ll likely only be a mediocre leader. The best
leaders are transactional and transformational.